Philosophy Compass, Volume 17, Issue 4, April 2022. -/- In a moment where needs for care are acute and their provision precarious, feminist care ethics has gained new relevance as a framework for understanding and responding to necessary interdependence. This article reviews and evaluates two long-standing critiques of care ethics in light of this recent research. First, I assess what I call the pluralist feminist critique, or the dispute over the ability of care ethics to address the needs and histories (...) of a range of marginalized subjects. I identify two forms of this critique: the first disputes the biased starting points shaping the development of the theory, and the second concerns the weaponization of care in support of domination. Although these critiques are well-established, I draw attention to recent responses that move care theory in generative directions. I argue that the pluralist feminist critique demands both self-critical transformation in dialog with other feminist schools of thought and a robust account of care ethics' normative authority. I then take up critiques those levied by mainstream ethicists concerned with care theory's adequacy as an ethical approach. I show that recent work on normative authority, conceptual uniqueness, and the grounding of responsibility must be engaged before care theory can be dismissed as “under-theorized.” In articulating these two sets of critiques and evaluating recent rebuttals to them, I argue for a pluralist feminist theory of care within which strands informed by varying philosophical schools and methods can coexist. (shrink)

The origin of the concept of “emotional sharing” can be traced back to the first edition of Sympathiebuch [1913/23], in which Max Scheler paved the way to a phenomenology of emotions and to social ontology. The importance of his findings is evident: consider the central role of emotional sharing in Michael Tomasello’s analysis and the lively debate on social ontology and collective intentionality.

This article discusses the challenging context that health care professionals are confronted with, and the impact of this context on their emotional experiences. Care ethics considers emotions as a valuable source of knowledge for good care. Thinking with care ethical theory and looking through a care ethical lens at a practical case example, the authors discern reflective questions that shed light on a care ethical approach toward the role of emotions in care practices, and may be used by practitioners and (...) facilitators for care ethical reflection on similar cases, in the particular and concrete context where issues around emotional experiences arise. The authors emphasize the importance of allowing emotions to exist, to acknowledge them and to not repress them, so that they can serve as a vehicle for ethical behavior in care practices. They stress the difference between acknowledging emotions and expressing them limitlessly. Formational practices and transformational research practices are being proposed to create moral space in care institutions and to support health care professionals to approach the emotionally turbulent practices they encounter in a way that contributes to good care for all those involved. (shrink)

Zusammenfassung Migrantische Pflege- und Betreuungskräfte, die zusammen mit pflegebedürftigen Menschen in ihren Haushalten leben (sog. migrantische Live-Ins), sind eine tragende Säule der ambulanten Langzeitpflege in zahlreichen Ländern – so auch in Deutschland. Zur Arbeits- und Lebenssituation der Live-Ins liegen inzwischen zahlreiche empirische Untersuchungen vor, die damit einhergehende Problemlagen offenbaren. Ein Schlüsselelement der Live-In Arrangements, nämlich die Beziehungen zwischen den Involvierten, wurde bislang jedoch aus ethischer Perspektive noch nicht systematisch untersucht. Aufbauend auf sozio-empirischen Arbeiten, die die Bedeutung von „Care-Networks“ dargelegt haben, (...) gehen wir von der Annahme aus, dass Live-Ins auf verschiedenen Ebenen in ein Netz von Beziehungen eingebettet sind, die für ihre Arbeits- und Lebenssituation wesentlich sind. Mit Hilfe der vier Care-Phasen Joan Trontos werden in diesem Beitrag bestehende Abhängigkeiten beschrieben und anhand der korrespondierenden vier ethischen Dimensionen reflektiert. Zentral sind die Fragen, wie sich die Abhängigkeiten im Live-In Arrangement auf der Basis des bisherigen Korpus empirischer Studien charakterisieren lassen und wie die Beziehungsstrukturen mit Fokus auf die Elemente Macht, Abhängigkeit und Vertrauen in der Care-ethischen Reflexion eingeordnet werden können. Auf der Basis dieser Analyse zeigt sich, dass die aus der Gleichzeitigkeit verschiedener Formen von Asymmetrie und gegenseitiger Abhängigkeit resultierende Ambivalenz in Live-In Arrangements allgegenwärtig ist und scheinbar widersprüchliche Beziehungsformen und Emotionen entstehen lässt. Die Verantwortlichkeiten der Beteiligten füreinander sind vage und werden auf der Grundlage impliziter Annahmen und problematischer Rollenerwartungen ständig neu ausgehandelt und auch ohne Aushandlung zugewiesen. Es gilt künftig, nicht nur auf der Mikroebene des einzelnen häuslichen Pflegearrangements Verantwortlichkeiten aus den unterschiedlichen Positionen und Rollen heraus und mit Blick auf die changierenden Prozesse der Sorgebeziehungen besser zu verstehen und zu klären, sondern sich ebenfalls auf der Meso- und Makroebene – bereichert durch Care-ethische Perspektiven – den drängenden ethischen Fragen und Problemen in Live-In Arrangements zu stellen. (shrink)

This paper proposes a conversation between Jacques Rancière and feminist care ethicists. It argues that there are important resonances between these two bodies of scholarship, thanks to their similar indictments of Western hierarchies and binaries, their shared invitation to “blur boundaries” and embrace a politics of “impropriety”, and their views on the significance of storytelling/narratives and of the ordinary. Drawing largely on Disagreement, Proletarian Nights, and The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation, I also indicate that Rancière’s work offers (...) crucial and timely insights for care ethicists on the importance of attending to desire and hope in research, the inevitability of conflict in social transformation, and the need to think together the transformation of care work/practices and of dominant social norms. (shrink)

Background Migrant live-in care workers are a main pillar of long-term care in many countries, including Germany. Several studies examining their working and living conditions reveal serious problems. However, a key element of live-in arrangements, namely the relationship between the individuals involved, has not yet been systematically investigated from an ethical perspective. Aim Building on previous socioempirical work that explored and set out the meaning of “care networks”, we start from the premise that live-ins are embedded in a network of (...) relationships which are essential for their employment and living situation. Methods The theoretical analysis draws on a network approach that takes care–ethical considerations into account. Using Joan Tronto’s four care–ethical phases, existing dependencies are described and reflected upon using the corresponding four care–ethical dimensions. The central questions are how dependencies in the live-in arrangement can be characterised based on the existing body of empirical studies and with a focus on the elements of power, dependency and trust in the ethical reflection on care. Results Based on this analysis, it becomes apparent that the ambivalence resulting from the simultaneity of different forms of asymmetry and mutual dependence is omnipresent in live-in arrangements and gives rise to seemingly contradictory forms of relationships and emotions. Responsibilities are vague and are constantly renegotiated on the basis of implicit assumptions and problematic role expectations and are also assigned without negotiation. Conclusions In the future, it will not only be necessary to better understand and clarify responsibilities at the micro level of the individual care arrangement from the various positions and roles and with a view to the changing processes of caring for another, but also to address the pressing ethical questions and problems in live-in arrangements at the meso and macro levels—enriched by care–ethical perspectives. (shrink)